From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25768 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2017 09:03:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 22316 Received: (qmail 9145 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2017 09:03:34 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mout.gmx.net by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(212.227.15.19):SA:0(-1.9/5.0):. Processed in 0.786194 secs); 01 Jan 2017 09:03:34 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: llua@gmx.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at gmx.com designates 212.227.15.19 as permitted sender) Subject: Re: Should zipping two empty arrays result in empty string? To: zsh-users@zsh.org References: <98007a1c-8cd4-f6bf-36c4-65f046e8bc17@gmx.com> From: Eric Cook Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 03:50:30 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:b1JF2pS7BzsEZKhIw2Mzy6ziITdt89PW6o1L6zLBdwnO26Stm5J OzzfrYfZmuvVjIfWN8pi9Bcxx0zhvnEEaPJ+Pyjxd7737TRobm2wRhNBdvK2LnryOAkHFSi rGWgV2wY9RA8uWWjX6KJmlI1+jriZuKBzbS7UjDT+xswrE5QwveV3q9l0qOFF+qrN6jGSVV rCj1JHjmUWVhYvEsJE7hg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:hsJRtekxDHg=:/u06tM0MiIbii/woXTJZ59 IPLfG0eQLx7vECGBU/1qwA3kn0rKeqbVrSjyAzpL961Bnwvpp6e/UOUMpffRRBP4HLldj8cvx 9BDZc3W5jowLZWuGnS2I48Vcw52r88MdyJSQIT6saScDTabjxiShitoc9oqbZecCBuAkMFFMN K59oE+swoG453GyzNmYhk9vmn/fV5sbFEEg6elE/fX3E06ZpJT0qzSBYjtxutofIE7cksFK87 tZW9kw/COOXDyK4yOyqzk/nf0kqata/C1LE4LcvbnhsCkNmJc2Dq2PnrjO6H/ALIHzpklodcq G+84lzYmOM490X7dM0V6Nu0AitD24N/oGREXjbDXfl0ePVLdzeIjT0aBM+tQPf3NsAKa763cU M9CW35UMXaqpz9QFag9tsm+lPhnMx7FcTeoJjdrhKGqQowVsn5vn/GRYqcgecWnQ4ePmneNFS IPX/qHJ4JZsA/O4lJwQ+hmU8eoW3Igw1JYQ8CUL6L+w1aiq6R7e0L4am+KcI2xvSIz58NtCXK /tF02SCPE4Ubvbb8IMCitiBJcDJtVidlJtrPNwIQ4Lnhg7ER+Q7qjER0YkqodCY8tMvdSpFY6 Chdo2PLM/UGqSyip4L2pILnBDpcxm/oNmnOgZjvbIZHE1eLhMr5lu/9KHfdua0TGVn1mMNT2e 4bNcJbuOOsJTQWfUcI/RhjurOFoFZbJbNjAIQjxP/hJIRcU90c+XwFUMi3nz6cNtlBKT+tY+/ 3MQame61n4zGwfBCU0dBELe3UAdBGvS2XXjnOWJPXmLeNidezkNe4QH+YNt6+Nw9cGklmcM45 7WnqG8J On 01/01/2017 12:18 AM, Kannan Varadhan wrote: > Isn't this identical to > > % for i in "" ; do typeset -p i ; done > > which yields exactly one iteration, as I would expect? > That is indeed how it currently is, which is weird in my opinion. Because when you expand an empty array in any other instance, you don't get an argument/word; because there is none. I would expect it behave like: % for i in "${empty[@]}"; do typeset -p i; done Which won't iterate.